June 14-Rem Case2 - Republic V Gimenez Case 1 R33 DTE

G.R. No.
174673, Jan 11, 2016 (Second Division)

Republic of the Philippines v Fe Roa Gimenez and Iganacio Gimenez
FACTS:
The Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),

instituted a Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and
Damages against the Gimenez Spouses before the Sandiganbayan. The Complaint
seeks to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth acquired by Spouses Gimenez as dummies
or agents of former President Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos and Imelda
Marcos.
During trial, the Republic presented documentary evidence attesting to the positions
held, business interests, income, and pertinent transactions of the Gimenez Spouses.
Witnesses testified on the bank accounts and businesses owned or controlled by the
Gimenez Spouses.
On February 27, 2006, the Republic manifested that it was "no longer presenting
further evidence." Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gave the Republic 30 days or until
March 29, 2006 "to file its formal offer of evidence.”. On March 29, 2006, the Republic
moved "for an extension of thirty (30) days or until April 28, 2006, within which to file
[its] formal offer of evidence." This Motion was granted by the Sandiganbayan. On April
27, 2006, the Republic moved for an additional 15 days or until May 13, 2006, within
which to file its Formal Offer of Evidence. This was again granted by the
Sandiganbayan. Following this, no additional Motion for Extension was filed by the
Republic.
In the Resolution dated May 25, 2006, the Sandiganbayan noted that the Republic
failed to file its Formal Offer of Evidence notwithstanding repeated extensions and the
lapse of 75 days from the date it terminated its presentation of evidence. Thus, it
declared that the Republic waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence.
Ignacio Gimenez filed a Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence dated May 30,
2006.22 He argued that the Republic showed no right to relief as there was no
evidence to support its cause of action. Fe Roa Gimenez filed a Motion to Dismiss
dated June 13, 2006 on the ground of failure to prosecute. Through her own Motion to
Dismiss, she joined Ignacio Gimenez’s demurrer to evidence.
In the second assailed Resolution dated September 13, 2006, the Sandiganbayan

denied the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration and granted the Gimenez Spouses’
Motion to Dismiss.
The Republic files a Petition1 for Review on Certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan

Resolutions dated May 25, 20062 and September 13, 2006.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that petitioner Republic of the
Philippines waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence and in granting respondents
Ignacio Gimenez and Fe Roa Gimenez’s Motion to Dismiss on demurrer to evidence.
HELD:
To determine the propriety of granting respondents’ Motion to Dismiss based on

Demurrer to Evidence, the Supreme Court reviewed the nature of demurrer.
Rule 33, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence.— After the plaintiff has completed the presentation
of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the
facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he
shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the
order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present
evidence.
What should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurrer to evidence
is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief based on the facts and the law. The
evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of
the case, excluding technical aspects such as capacity to sue.
Petitioner Republic presented both testimonial and documentary evidence that tended
to establish a presumption that respondents acquired ill-gotten wealth during
respondent Fe Roa Gimenez’ incumbency as public officer and which total amount or
value was manifestly out of proportion to her and her husband’s salaries and to their
other lawful income or properties. Several exhibits excluded by the Sandiganbayan
were offered as part of petitioner’s testimonial evidence.
The court cannot arbitrarily disregard evidence especially when resolving a demurrer to
evidence which tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence. A liberal application of
the Rules is in line with the state’s policy to recover ill-gotten wealth. In case of doubt,
courts should proceed with caution in granting a motion to dismiss based on demurrer
to evidence. An order granting demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits. This
is because while a demurrer "is an aid or instrument for the expeditious termination of
an action,” it specifically "pertains to the merits of the case.
The Sandiganbayan erred in granting the Motion to Dismiss on demurrer to evidence. It

erred in making a sweeping declaration on the probative value of the documentary
evidence offered by petitioner and in excluding other evidence offered during trial
without full evaluation based on reasons grounded in law and/or jurisprudence.
To erroneously grant a dismissal simply based on the delay to formally offer

documentary evidence essentially deprives one party of due process. Respondents
were not able to even comment on the Formal Offer of Evidence. Due process now
requires that the case be remanded to the Sandiganbayan.
Petition is granted. Assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are reversed and set
aside. Case is remanded to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.

June 14-Rem Case2 - Republic V Gimenez Case 1 R33 DTE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 14-Rem Case2 - Republic V Gimenez Case 1 R33 DTE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 14-Rem Case2 - Republic V Gimenez Case 1 R33 DTE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

174673, Jan 11, 2016 (Second Division)

The Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),

In the second assailed Resolution dated September 13, 2006, the Sandiganbayan

The Republic files a Petition1 for Review on Certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan

To determine the propriety of granting respondents’ Motion to Dismiss based on

Rule 33, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:

The Sandiganbayan erred in granting the Motion to Dismiss on demurrer to evidence. It

To erroneously grant a dismissal simply based on the delay to formally offer

You might also like